Do you agree with Marten that “complex peacekeeping
operations” are similar to liberal colonialism?

Is the contemporary purpose behind CPOs
similar to the imperial motive for
controlling colonies? Does the different intent matter for purposes of Marten’s
comparison?

Should we take the “humanitarian
plank” of the 1885 Berlin Conference (p.86) seriously?

Marten argues that humanitarian norms and security interests
were entwined in liberal colonialism and contemporary peacekeeping. Do you
agree that norms and interests are entwined, or does one social factor
dominate?

If norms matter, why was there no
intervention in Rwanda?

Does the need for CPOs to be
“doubly multilateral” (p.10) mean that they are doomed to fail? Must mission
coherence be sacrificed to achieve international consent to begin a CPO and domestic
participation during the CPO? Is it an error to sacrifice self-determination
for control?

Has multilateral support in Afghanistan
made that mission easier?

Marten seems to argue that CPOs
either do too little or attempt too much. Is this a fair criticism? What is
Marten’s proposed alternative?

Are current difficulties in Iraq
due to lack of US will or doing too much?